The creation of a proto-NATO after the end of World War I

[WolfBear]

After the end of World War I, Republicans in the US Senate were willing to support creating a peacetime defensive alliance between the US, Britain, and France through the Security Treaty:

Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I on JSTOR

Lloyd E. Ambrosius, Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I, The Journal of American History, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Sep., 1972), pp. 341-352

www.jstor.org

However, US President Woodrow Wilson never actually took them up on this offer, instead preferring to focus on the League of Nations, where he ultimately failed anyway. But let's say that Wilson's late 1919 stroke kills him and that the new US President, Thomas Marshall, decides to cooperate with the Republicans in the US Senate in regards to this. So, the US now have a peacetime defensive alliance with Britain and France that protects France from unprovoked German aggression. Anyway, what happens afterwards? Is there any chance of this proto-NATO subsequently being expanded to include other countries, for instance? If so, which ones?

Thoughts on this?

 

[stevep]

After the end of World War I, Republicans in the US Senate were willing to support creating a peacetime defensive alliance between the US, Britain, and France through the Security Treaty:

Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I on JSTOR

Lloyd E. Ambrosius, Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I, The Journal of American History, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Sep., 1972), pp. 341-352

www.jstor.org

However, US President Woodrow Wilson never actually took them up on this offer, instead preferring to focus on the League of Nations, where he ultimately failed anyway. But let's say that Wilson's late 1919 stroke kills him and that the new US President, Thomas Marshall, decides to cooperate with the Republicans in the US Senate in regards to this. So, the US now have a peacetime defensive alliance with Britain and France that protects France from unprovoked German aggression. Anyway, what happens afterwards? Is there any chance of this proto-NATO subsequently being expanded to include other countries, for instance? If so, which ones?

Thoughts on this?

If that had come about it might well have been a game changer, provided that no future US government repudiated the agreement. It would have meet French need for security and as a result would have greatly eased tensions with Germany in the Wiemar period.

In terms of what other countries would fancy joining it then, assuming you get something like Nazi Germany emerging Belgium is probably going to be a prime candidate. Poland would like to be included, worried by both Germany and the USSR but would the three powers be the will to expand it that far? Would be interesting if Austria or Czechoslovakia became members sometime before the later 30's.

One big question would be if someone like Italy was also a member then becomes a dictatorship? Given that all three core states were democracies would there be a tendency to expel non-democratic states?

 

[WolfBear]

If that had come about it might well have been a game changer, provided that no future US government repudiated the agreement. It would have meet French need for security and as a result would have greatly eased tensions with Germany in the Wiemar period.

In terms of what other countries would fancy joining it then, assuming you get something like Nazi Germany emerging Belgium is probably going to be a prime candidate. Poland would like to be included, worried by both Germany and the USSR but would the three powers be the will to expand it that far? Would be interesting if Austria or Czechoslovakia became members sometime before the later 30's.

One big question would be if someone like Italy was also a member then becomes a dictatorship? Given that all three core states were democracies would there be a tendency to expel non-democratic states?

Belgium seems very possible. What about the Netherlands? Would the Dutch have preferred to keep their neutrality?

I fear that any inclusion of Czechoslovakia and/or Poland would be vetoed by the Anglo-Americans because they could fear that those countries could eventually become sparks for a new World War. Romania's territorial dispute with the Soviet Union would likely prevent it from joining, especially considering that it would also have both Hungary and Bulgaria eyeing its territory. Meanwhile, Italy would still have designs on Yugoslavia that would likely prevent Yugoslavia from joining this alliance.

Italy is a possible candidate to join this alliance, I suppose. I don't think that it would get expelled from this alliance merely for being a dictatorship, but it certainly could if it does anything outrageous, such as invading Ethiopia, as it actually did in 1935 in real life. That's what caused the Stresa Front to collapse in real life, after all.

I also wonder if Switzerland might be interested in joining this alliance. I think that Austria joining would be unlikely since AFAIK most Austrians still hoped to eventually unify with Germany back then.

 

[stevep]

Belgium seems very possible. What about the Netherlands? Would the Dutch have preferred to keep their neutrality?

I fear that any inclusion of Czechoslovakia and/or Poland would be vetoed by the Anglo-Americans because they could fear that those countries could eventually become sparks for a new World War. Romania's territorial dispute with the Soviet Union would likely prevent it from joining, especially considering that it would also have both Hungary and Bulgaria eyeing its territory. Meanwhile, Italy would still have designs on Yugoslavia that would likely prevent Yugoslavia from joining this alliance.

Italy is a possible candidate to join this alliance, I suppose. I don't think that it would get expelled from this alliance merely for being a dictatorship, but it certainly could if it does anything outrageous, such as invading Ethiopia, as it actually did in 1935 in real life. That's what caused the Stresa Front to collapse in real life, after all.

I also wonder if Switzerland might be interested in joining this alliance. I think that Austria joining would be unlikely since AFAIK most Austrians still hoped to eventually unify with Germany back then.

If Belgium did join such an alliance I wonder if - assuming things develop as OTL - the Maginot Line would continue along the Belgium-German border? Or at least Belgium, probably with some allied fiscal support might develop its own eastern defences.

I think that because it worked in 1914 the Dutch would go for continued neutrality rather than an alliance. Although one other point with them. If we assume that the Anglo-Japanese alliance isn't renewed then they might be interested in an alliance to protect their colonies but not sure if the other powers, especially the US would think of this. A lot would depend on the Anglo-Japanese alliance status and also what WNT equivalent occurs or not in TTL.

Agree with the other comments but think that the Swiss would be determined to maintain their strict neutrality. Especially since such an alliance, especially without members further east is going to be seen as an anti-German one, even if strictly defensive.

Assuming that the alliance remained until the late 30's and continued including the US the issue then might well be that Washington wouldn't approve of any support for Prague or Warsaw so you might see France and Britain not give the guarantee to Poland. Although Washington might change its mind on such an issue assuming Hitler still breaches the Munich agreement. On the other hand such a guarantee could be a step too far for Belgium as it would find itself in the front line.

I suspect that the Scandinavians even more than the Dutch are likely to stick to neutrality.

 

[raharris1973]

Well if it’s like 1990s NATO, Poland and Czechoslovakia are welcome in, because hey, “come one, come all” and “the door is always open”.

 

[raharris1973]

If the US hasn’t repudiated the alliance by the 1930s and the Japanese still build their navy and attack China, the Americans will probably support tripartite planning for defense in Southeast Asia eeven if its not legally spelled out and even if they don’t like colonialism in principle. With the Philippines under threat, Singapore, indochina, New Guinea and Australia are all closer sources of help than any US possessions.

 

[WolfBear]

If Belgium did join such an alliance I wonder if - assuming things develop as OTL - the Maginot Line would continue along the Belgium-German border? Or at least Belgium, probably with some allied fiscal support might develop its own eastern defences.

I think that because it worked in 1914 the Dutch would go for continued neutrality rather than an alliance. Although one other point with them. If we assume that the Anglo-Japanese alliance isn't renewed then they might be interested in an alliance to protect their colonies but not sure if the other powers, especially the US would think of this. A lot would depend on the Anglo-Japanese alliance status and also what WNT equivalent occurs or not in TTL.

Agree with the other comments but think that the Swiss would be determined to maintain their strict neutrality. Especially since such an alliance, especially without members further east is going to be seen as an anti-German one, even if strictly defensive.

Assuming that the alliance remained until the late 30's and continued including the US the issue then might well be that Washington wouldn't approve of any support for Prague or Warsaw so you might see France and Britain not give the guarantee to Poland. Although Washington might change its mind on such an issue assuming Hitler still breaches the Munich agreement. On the other hand such a guarantee could be a step too far for Belgium as it would find itself in the front line.

I suspect that the Scandinavians even more than the Dutch are likely to stick to neutrality.

Yeah, I was actually thinking of the Anglo-French refusing to offer a guarantee to Poland in 1939 (or whenever) in this TL if the US is unwilling to actually back then up militarily in regards to this. Though maybe the US could commit to giving the Anglo-French all aid short of war, including any US military volunteers that they can get, in such a scenario. So, Lend-Lease, Cash-and-Carry, and creating American divisions in the French and/or British armed forces (French Foreign Legion, et cetera).

The rest of what you wrote here does sound reasonable, no doubt.

There could perhaps eventually be attempts to incorporate Germany into this alliance, but it would have to occur before/in the absence of the Nazis and recognition of the existing borders would have to be a precondition for this, which Germany is extraordinarily unlikely to actually agree to. I mean recognition of the existing borders everywhere, not only in the West. And categorically rule out the use of force in engaging in territorial revision and also not engaging in things such as this trade war with Poland:

German–Polish customs war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Maginot Line could be built through Belgium in this TL, though the Dutch might not like that since it would increase the odds of the Nazis subsequently invading them, unless of course the Maginot Line will also be built on the Belgian-Dutch border, which will likely be viewed as a provocative act by the Dutch.

 

[WolfBear]

Well if it’s like 1990s NATO, Poland and Czechoslovakia are welcome in, because hey, “come one, come all” and “the door is always open”.

But the thing is, that the American people were much more isolationist in the 1920s and 1930s than they were in the 1990s. Even with a defensive peacetime Anglo-French alliance, I don't see this actually changing too much. In the 1990s, the US had decades of spending on its military-industrial complex that allowed it to build and sustain a giant military, but in the 1920s, the US military-industrial complex wasn't actually a thing yet. That, and providing effective defense to Czechoslovakia and Poland would be much harder when Germany itself is not an alliance member. Any aid to them would have to be sent through either Yugoslavia or Italy/Austria unless of course one wants to subject them to a temporary occupation (as in 1939-1940 in real life) and hope that a victory in the West will subsequently result in them being liberated.

If the US hasn’t repudiated the alliance by the 1930s and the Japanese still build their navy and attack China, the Americans will probably support tripartite planning for defense in Southeast Asia eeven if its not legally spelled out and even if they don’t like colonialism in principle. With the Philippines under threat, Singapore, indochina, New Guinea and Australia are all closer sources of help than any US possessions.

Yep, that makes sense. A US-British-French alliance in the Far East as well, at least an informal one.

 

[WolfBear]

Well if it’s like 1990s NATO, Poland and Czechoslovakia are welcome in, because hey, “come one, come all” and “the door is always open”.

I do want to make a point here: While I don't think that the Franco-Anglo-Americans would actually be willing to welcome the Czechoslovaks or Poles into this alliance before their territorial disputes with Germany are definitively resolved, afterwards, I could certainly see all three of these countries being welcomed into this alliance. This would, of course, be easier if there is no Nazi rise to power in Germany in this TL. An interesting question, of course, would be whether Poland will ever end up losing the Kresy (its eastern territories) to the Soviet Union in this TL and whether the Soviet Union will still ever eventually break up in this TL. Another interesting question would be whether the Baltic countries would ever actually be welcomed into this alliance or whether doing this would be deemed too much of a security risk vis-a-vis Russia/the Soviet Union.

 

[WolfBear]

If that had come about it might well have been a game changer, provided that no future US government repudiated the agreement. It would have meet French need for security and as a result would have greatly eased tensions with Germany in the Wiemar period.

In terms of what other countries would fancy joining it then, assuming you get something like Nazi Germany emerging Belgium is probably going to be a prime candidate. Poland would like to be included, worried by both Germany and the USSR but would the three powers be the will to expand it that far? Would be interesting if Austria or Czechoslovakia became members sometime before the later 30's.

One big question would be if someone like Italy was also a member then becomes a dictatorship? Given that all three core states were democracies would there be a tendency to expel non-democratic states?

Steve, I've been thinking about this and I've concluded that the best way to expand this hypothetical alliance would have been for the Bolsheviks to conquer Poland (and maybe the Baltic countries and/or Finland as well) in 1920-1921. In such a scenario, there would have been a very real need to protect the remaining parts of the West from any future Bolshevik conquests and thus it would make sense for this Franco-Anglo-American alliance to expand its security structures further east to all of the remaining free capitalist countries. So, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania, et cetera. Maybe all of these countries would eventually outright join this alliance as well, in which case we truly would have a proto-NATO facing off against the Soviet Union much earlier than was the case in real life.

 

[stevep]

Steve, I've been thinking about this and I've concluded that the best way to expand this hypothetical alliance would have been for the Bolsheviks to conquer Poland (and maybe the Baltic countries and/or Finland as well) in 1920-1921. In such a scenario, there would have been a very real need to protect the remaining parts of the West from any future Bolshevik conquests and thus it would make sense for this Franco-Anglo-American alliance to expand its security structures further east to all of the remaining free capitalist countries. So, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania, et cetera. Maybe all of these countries would eventually outright join this alliance as well, in which case we truly would have a proto-NATO facing off against the Soviet Union much earlier than was the case in real life.

That might be the best option. The US still thought of itself as separate from Europe and probably neither France nor Britain would think they needed protection against the OTL Bolsheviks, especially given the shambolic state of the country after they won the civil war. However if they won more quickly and then had significant successes against neighbours plus you also could have more successful - at least initially - communist revolts in other countries.

Possibly its not the Bolsheviks that come out on top in Russia - say Lenin has some fatal accident and fails to push them to seizing power. Instead the Provisional government eventually comes under the control of more moderate revolutionaries such as the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries who were more moderate and vastly more popular than the Bolsheviks and hence could possibly take over without major civil war. However their still going to be seen as a threat to the established order so could prompt fears in Europe and the US - especially possibly say if they start supporting similar movements elsewhere in central and eastern Europe.

Steve

 

[WolfBear]

That might be the best option. The US still thought of itself as separate from Europe and probably neither France nor Britain would think they needed protection against the OTL Bolsheviks, especially given the shambolic state of the country after they won the civil war. However if they won more quickly and then had significant successes against neighbours plus you also could have more successful - at least initially - communist revolts in other countries.

Possibly its not the Bolsheviks that come out on top in Russia - say Lenin has some fatal accident and fails to push them to seizing power. Instead the Provisional government eventually comes under the control of more moderate revolutionaries such as the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries who were more moderate and vastly more popular than the Bolsheviks and hence could possibly take over without major civil war. However their still going to be seen as a threat to the established order so could prompt fears in Europe and the US - especially possibly say if they start supporting similar movements elsewhere in central and eastern Europe.

Steve

The thing is, though, that AFAIK the Socialist Revolutionaries were pro-democracy and against totalitarian tyranny, so even if they want to export their government model abroad, I don't see this being perceived as being anywhere near as scary as the Bolsheviks doing the same thing.

If the Bolsheviks crush Poland, then the West will likely allow Germany to rearm much earlier, but it would still make sense for the West to aggressively keep an eye on Germany just as a precautionary measure. Thus, it would make sense to include Germany in any proto-NATO that's created after WWI. The purpose of NATO in real life was to keep the US in, keep the Russians out, and keep the Germans down, and the same is likely to be a proto-NATO's purpose after the end of WWI in this TL.

 

[stevep]

The thing is, though, that AFAIK the Socialist Revolutionaries were pro-democracy and against totalitarian tyranny, so even if they want to export their government model abroad, I don't see this being perceived as being anywhere near as scary as the Bolsheviks doing the same thing.

If the Bolsheviks crush Poland, then the West will likely allow Germany to rearm much earlier, but it would still make sense for the West to aggressively keep an eye on Germany just as a precautionary measure. Thus, it would make sense to include Germany in any proto-NATO that's created after WWI. The purpose of NATO in real life was to keep the US in, keep the Russians out, and keep the Germans down, and the same is likely to be a proto-NATO's purpose after the end of WWI in this TL.

On the last bit very true.

One the 1st even a moderate Russian government that supported major social reforms and possibly is even coming out against racism and colonialism would be seen as a major challenge to a more conservative west and central Europe - especially if its supporting revolutionary activity in say Germany [more moderate Spartanist and Bavarian type revolts] and Hungary. Coupled with a degree of misunderstanding and/or political malice on either/both sides its easy to see Russia ending up supporting hard line communists or been represented as doing so. Doubly so if as a result of such support one or two Russian allies are established in the east.

Another factor is what happens if the government decides it has to default on war debts given the mess the country is in. OTL that would mainly hit an already hard pressed Britain and France who supplied the loans to Russia. However if the war has lasted a bit longer and Russia has received a proportion of US money or say that without repayment they can't pay their own debts that might make elements in the US more hostile to Russia and thinking of supporting an anti-Russian bloc.

I still think its going to be difficult to tie the US into an actual defensive alliance in this time period. However something like this might be the best bet - other than having an undefeated imperial Germany which is rather at contradiction with your scenario.

 

[WolfBear]

On the last bit very true.

One the 1st even a moderate Russian government that supported major social reforms and possibly is even coming out against racism and colonialism would be seen as a major challenge to a more conservative west and central Europe - especially if its supporting revolutionary activity in say Germany [more moderate Spartanist and Bavarian type revolts] and Hungary. Coupled with a degree of misunderstanding and/or political malice on either/both sides its easy to see Russia ending up supporting hard line communists or been represented as doing so. Doubly so if as a result of such support one or two Russian allies are established in the east.

Another factor is what happens if the government decides it has to default on war debts given the mess the country is in. OTL that would mainly hit an already hard pressed Britain and France who supplied the loans to Russia. However if the war has lasted a bit longer and Russia has received a proportion of US money or say that without repayment they can't pay their own debts that might make elements in the US more hostile to Russia and thinking of supporting an anti-Russian bloc.

Fair points.

I still think its going to be difficult to tie the US into an actual defensive alliance in this time period. However something like this might be the best bet - other than having an undefeated imperial Germany which is rather at contradiction with your scenario.

Did you see my original post here? It was a very real possibility back in 1919, albeit only extending to Britain and France?

After the end of World War I, Republicans in the US Senate were willing to support creating a peacetime defensive alliance between the US, Britain, and France through the Security Treaty:

Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I on JSTOR

Lloyd E. Ambrosius, Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I, The Journal of American History, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Sep., 1972), pp. 341-352

www.jstor.org

However, US President Woodrow Wilson never actually took them up on this offer, instead preferring to focus on the League of Nations, where he ultimately failed anyway. But let's say that Wilson's late 1919 stroke kills him and that the new US President, Thomas Marshall, decides to cooperate with the Republicans in the US Senate in regards to this. So, the US now have a peacetime defensive alliance with Britain and France that protects France from unprovoked German aggression. Anyway, what happens afterwards? Is there any chance of this proto-NATO subsequently being expanded to include other countries, for instance? If so, which ones?

Thoughts on this?

This article can be found for free in its entirety on LibGen, FWIW.

 

[sillygoose]

That is what the LoN was supposed to be; if anyone declared war on a member the rest were obligated to defend them. Didn't work out in practice.

 

[WolfBear]

That is what the LoN was supposed to be; if anyone declared war on a member the rest were obligated to defend them. Didn't work out in practice.

AFAIK, even Woodrow Wilson said that the League of Nations's Article X only exemplified a moral commitment to defend other countries' territorial integrity rather than a legal commitment to do this. Hence France's desire to secure a more solid Anglo-French alliance in 1919.

FWIW, Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State Robert Lansing actually was somewhat critical of the French Security Treaty in this respect, arguing that it would be unfair to expect countries like Czechoslovakia or Poland to rely on vague League of Nations security guarantees while France got a more solid security guarantee in the form of an explicit Anglo-American alliance. He discusses this in this post-WWI memoir of his:

The peace negotiations, a personal narrative : Lansing, Robert, 1864-1928 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

archive.org

But the thing is that while Americans in 1919 might have been willing to agree to a peacetime defensive alliance with the UK and France, they certainly weren't willing to commit to defending the territorial integrity of any other country for all time.

 

[stevep]

Fair points.



Did you see my original post here? It was a very real possibility back in 1919, albeit only extending to Britain and France?



This article can be found for free in its entirety on LibGen, FWIW.

Good point. I'm doubtful whether that alliance would have been stable although if it had it would have made a big difference to international relations. That still being in place in 1939 and possibly even a US government then with Hitler kicking up such a rumphus might have been willing to extend aid to the Czechs when they were threatened.

Unfortunately while I have a Jstor account its a personal one rather than via a school/library and I don't fancy spending $19 for it. - My religious principles as a devour miser.

 

[WolfBear]

Good point. I'm doubtful whether that alliance would have been stable although if it had it would have made a big difference to international relations. That still being in place in 1939 and possibly even a US government then with Hitler kicking up such a rumphus might have been willing to extend aid to the Czechs when they were threatened.

Unfortunately while I have a Jstor account its a personal one rather than via a school/library and I don't fancy spending $19 for it. - My religious principles as a devour miser.

By LibGen, I was talking about this:

Library Genesis

libgen.li

Just be careful because it's technically piracy (though AFAIK no one or almost no one actually gets caught for using LibGen):

Library Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

FWIW, this proposed alliance only applied to unprovoked German aggression against France. It did not apply to unprovoked German aggression against French allies such as Czechoslovakia and Poland. So, the US would have had no legal duty to fight for Czechoslovakia and Poland or even to fight for France had France declared war on Nazi Germany on behalf of Czechoslovakia and Poland, since then it would not have been unprovoked aggression on the part of Nazi Germany towards France itself.

 

[WolfBear]

@stevep You need to type in the article name ("Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I") on the LibGen search engine and then click on the relevant article and download it. Just be careful with this because, again, this is technically considered piracy even though AFAIK no one or almost no one actually gets caught and punished for doing this (as in, this specifically, on LibGen).

 

[stevep]

@stevep You need to type in the article name ("Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I") on the LibGen search engine and then click on the relevant article and download it. Just be careful with this because, again, this is technically considered piracy even though AFAIK no one or almost no one actually gets caught and punished for doing this (as in, this specifically, on LibGen).

OK thanks. I think I will play safe.

Sorry about the late reply but the heat has been so bad the past few days and my computer like me has seen better days so I cut useage to the minimal to avoid any risk of it giving up on me. A good bit cooler now so trying to catch up today.